TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (9) TMI 626
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r on behalf of Mr. U.B. Saha. 2.. The case of the petitioners in this writ petition is that they own a smallscale industrial unit located at Silchar in the district of Cachar, Assam, and are manufacturing stone chips, etc., in the said industrial unit. The said industrial unit is a dealer registered under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. It is also registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It has been supplying stone chips and other goods to different parties in the State of Tripura for the last several years. Pursuant to tender notice, the petitioners have been awarded three different contracts for supply and stacking of stone chips to the project sites of respondents Nos. 6 to 10 in the State of Tripura. Pursuant to the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioners, vehemently contended that the sale transactions in favour of the respondents Nos. 6 to 10 are all interstate sales and that respondents Nos. 6 to 10 are the consignee of the goods in question and therefore the petitioners were not selling the said goods inside the State of Tripura. The 11irther pointed out that under the Tripura, Sales Tax Act, 1976 registration is only required for selling goods inside the State of Tripura. According to the petitioners, the insistence on the part of the Superintendent of Taxes, Government of Tripura, for registration of the petitioners as a registered dealers under the Tripura Sales Tax Act and Rules made thereunder is illegal. They further pointed out that even on previous occasions the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The question as to whether the supply of the stone chips by the petitioners to respondents Nos. 6 to 10 under the three different contracts is an intrastate sale from Assam to Tripura liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act or is an inter-State sale in the State of Tripura is a mixed question of fact and law and such a question cannot be decided by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution. Further as to whether the petitioners are at all liable for the sales tax on the goods under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 cannot be decided by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution at this stage without any assessment process as such being initiated or completed against the petitioners under the said Act. It is only in an ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r cannot be furnished with form No. XVIII. It appears that the petitioner on previous occasions was issued with form No. XVIII even though it was not a registered dealer. But then there is no estoppel against law and in any case estoppel does not apply to taxation law. If the rule 46 provides that it is only the registered dealer who can be issued with form No. XVIII then it is only a registered dealer who can be issued such form No. XVIII notwithstanding the fact that on earlier occasions the petitioners though not registered dealers were issued form No. XVIII. 7.. The real apprehension of the petitioners is that in case they apply for registration under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 and are registered dealer under the said Act, the a....